9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes, for the Appellant. Shri J.M. Kennedy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 80,40,952.00 and penalty amount of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon them by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna. 2. Shri K. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate along with Shri K.K. Baner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rule 9. The benefit of the said Rule has been denied by the Commissioner by observing that the requisite procedure under Rule 56A have not been followed by the applicants/appellants. He submits that as they were not claiming the benefit of notification issued under Rule 56A, there was no requirements to follow the procedure of the said Rules. Their case is covered by the provisions of 3rd prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hearing both sides, we agree with the submissions of the ld. advocate appearing for the applicants. The Commissioner has not given any reasoning for denying them the benefit of 3rd proviso to rule 9 condition which are fully satisfied by the appellants. As such, we find that the appellants have a strong prima facie case in their favour. Accordingly, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
